State v. Richard Perez (072624), 106 A.3d 1212

On July 9, 2010 Richard Perez sent four explicit text messages to N.C., a 13‑year‑old, and made three unanswered phone calls; the texts expressed a desire for sexual activity but did not name a specific time or place. Grandfather notified police.
Perez pleaded guilty (April 13, 2011) to second‑degree child luring (N.J.S.A. 2C:13‑6) and third‑degree endangering the welfare of a child, admitting he attempted to lure N.C. to a place to engage in sexual relations and acknowledging the text messages.
Later motion to withdraw plea was denied; at sentencing the court imposed extended, parole‑ineligible terms under N.J.S.A. 2C:43‑6.4, treating Perez as if on parole supervision for life (PSL).
Perez was actually serving community supervision for life (CSL) from a 1998 sex‑offense conviction; the statute was amended in 2003 to replace CSL references with PSL and added new provisions.
Appellate Division affirmed (finding factual basis adequate and amendment only nominal); New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification to decide sufficiency of the plea factual basis and legality/ex post facto implications of applying PSL rules to a pre‑2004 CSL sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of factual basis for guilty plea to child luring	Text messages + Perez’s admissions show attempt to lure a child to meet for sex; statute protects early stages and need not specify a precise location	Messages were expressions of fantasy; no evidence he tried to get the child to meet at a particular place (no geographic specificity)	Affirmed: combined admissions and text messages provided adequate factual basis that Perez attempted to lure the child to a place to engage in sexual relations.
Whether 2003 amendment (CSL→PSL) permits imposing parole‑ineligible extended terms on someone sentenced under pre‑2004 CSL	Amendment is clarificatory/nomenclature only; CSL and PSL are functionally equivalent so extended term was lawful	Applying PSL consequences to pre‑2004 CSL increases punishment retroactively and violates Ex Post Facto Clauses	Reversed as to sentence: CSL and PSL are distinct; applying the post‑2003 PSL extended‑term rule (no parole) to a defendant sentenced under CSL increases punishment and violates ex post facto protections — remand for resentencing under CSL regime.

State v. Schubert, 212 N.J. 295 (2012) (CSL is an integral, punitive part of sentence and cannot be added after sentence completion)
State v. Perez (Manuel), 177 N.J. 540 (2003) (purpose of luring statute: criminalize early stages that may develop into kidnapping or sex offense)
State v. Campfield, 213 N.J. 218 (2013) (court must elicit comprehensive factual basis addressing each element before accepting guilty plea)
State v. T.M., 166 N.J. 319 (2001) (defendant must admit facts constituting essential elements; plea cannot rest on mere discussions or acquiescence)
State v. Smullen, 118 N.J. 408 (1990) (court must be satisfied from the defendant’s own statements that elements are met)
State v. Barboza, 115 N.J. 415 (1989) (factual‑basis requirement protects defendants from pleading to offenses their conduct does not actually encompass)
Riley v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 219 N.J. 270 (2014) (statutory changes imposing new, punitive constraints on sex offenders may violate ex post facto if applied retroactively)
State v. Lagares, 127 N.J. 20 (1992) (prosecutor must state reasons for seeking mandatory extended term and defendant may challenge arbitrariness)